7 things @ 11 o’clock (7.26)

3. The Rowan County (N.C.) Board of Commissioners has been rebuked by a U.S. District Court on account of their unconstitutional disagreeable animadversions.

Related: Anderson County, Tenn., has decided to put a sectarian religious statement on its courthouse. A local pastor, Steve McDonald, said it didn’t matter if this privileged one religion over others because of “majority rule.” McDonald is pastor of Calvary “Baptist” Church, but apparently that refers to the brand name of the staatskirche in his part of Tennessee and not to the form of Protestantism that practices believers’ baptism. McDonald’s logic is precisely the same as that of Mohamed Morsi, but it not compatible with anything describable as “Baptist.”

5. “It is so disrespectful of women, and what’s really stunning about it is they don’t even realize, they don’t have a clue,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She’s talking about Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and Democratic San Diego Mayor Bob Filner. And she’s right: “If they need therapy, do it in private.” TBogg adds some appropriate (but NSFW) commentary.

I think universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view of the afterlife that gives the Christian faith moral, biblical, intellectual and theological coherence. I’m dogmatic about that, about how universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view that makes sense when you really investigate the other options. In light of that, I’d say I’m more of a polemical universalist than a dogmatic universalist. I’m polemical in that I argue — strongly — that universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view that makes Christianity morally, biblically and theologically coherent and that all the other options — e.g., eternal conscious torment, conditionalism, and annihilationism — make Christianity morally, biblically and theologically incoherent (if not monstrous). I’ll argue that deep into the night and into the next day. That’s the polemical part. But being polemical — arguing the merits of your view against the weaknesses of alternative views — isn’t the same as being dogmatic. Because at the end of the day, do I know if any of this is really true? I don’t.

No one who advocates holding Christian prayers during civic meetings, school classes, or graduations has been able to explain to me why such group prayers can’t instead be held prior to the event.

It’s almost as if the purpose of such prayers is to force non-Christians to defer to Christian beliefs.

Jim Roberts

I high school, during my tenure as a clas president, that’s exactly what we did. there was me, a vice-president and two senators (our word for class reps) who’d get together to pray about five minutes ahead of the meeting. Even those I was a real ass in those days, it just seemed like the decent thing to do. Of course, this was at a very secular Canadian high school.

reynard61

“It’s almost as if the purpose of such prayers is to force non-Christians to defer to Christian beliefs.”

Regarding the Anderson County Courthouse: Does the fact that the phrase, “In God We Trust” is the national motto of the United States affect the legal issue regarding whether the sign violates the First Amendment?

Ross Thompson

The Supreme Court has generally held that “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” are meaningless pablum that don’t have any religious significance (and somehow, Christians don’t object to this), so maybe. But on the other hand the board is on record stating that they have explicit religious motives in erecting this sign, which will probably count against them.

aunursa

Yeah, it’s the same schizophrenic attitude they have when demanding that a cross be allowed to remain on public land. The Fundamentalists disingenuously assert that a cross is not a sectarian symbol, seemingly blissfully unaware of the irony of their own argument.

Lori

Also blissfully ignoring the question of why Christians want it up so bad if it’s not a sectarian symbol.

I’ve seen a number of fights over tearing stuff on public land down and a few over tearing down landmarks that are on private land. The group fighting the tear down is never entirely made up of Christians except in cases like this supposedly non-sectarian cross.

Donalbain

Yeah. Remember when Scalia was surprised that Jewish people would not put crosses on gravestones?

Ross Thompson

Oh, man. I’d forgotten about that.

Baby_Raptor

Christians don’t object to it because they don’t really believe it. Try walking into one of their churches when they’re praying and telling them that their use of “God” is just a senseless statement.

See also: Them using “In God we trust” being on everything as ‘proof’ that we’re a christian nation.

Marshall

I had to go check, but yea, the very first dollar bill I came to so states. So if they posted an image of the green side over the door, or just a detail, would it still be wrong? Seems to me such a picture over the Courthouse door would be EXTRA appropriate.

Pastor MacDonald is confused, but I don’t gather putting the motto up was his idea?

stardreamer42

The original motto of the United States was “E Pluribus Unum” (“out of many, one”). Here’s what the U.S. Treasury Department says about the use of “In God We Trust” on money; briefly, it dates from the time of the Slaveholders’ Rebellion.

That picture will never not evoke a smile and ‘awwww.’ Happy anniversary to you and the ‘Vixen! May the coming year be an excellent one for you and your daughters, and all those to follow.

Dash1

Of all the wedding-related photographs I’ve seen–and I’ve seen a goodly number–that is one of the best, in many different ways. Happy Anniversary!

TheBrett

2. Even the ancient Jubilees tended to exclude commercial debt from debt forgiveness. In any case, we already have a system to resolve unpayable debt – it’s called “bankruptcy”.

5. Why isn’t the Filner thing being looked into criminally? It can be a criminal or civil rights case if incidents of sexual harassment can be shown to have created a hostile work environment, and that’s clearly what Filner did.

Lori

Our bankruptcy laws are skewed so heavily in favor of creditors that it is almost obscene for you to bring them up as an argument against the concept of jubilee.

http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

(I’m not sure my comment was worth the bother of remembering my disqus password. I know that the new slick interface doesn’t make disqus work any better…)

Jill Lepore’s most recent book has a lovely essay on bankruptcy and the joint American-British effort to create a system of bankruptcy to replace debtors’ prisons. Charles Dickens was involved. The upshot is a) it could be worse – we could throw people in jail until they can pay their debts (I know, it still happens, but not systematically) and b) the whole idea of bankruptcy is inherently American (at least in part) from it’s birth. The idea that anyone, businessman or private citizen, could wipe away debts and start fresh – almost revolutionary.

Which is to say, I agree with you, and also that the current system is, in some way, anti-American. Especially, as Sam notes, in re: student debt.

http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

Too bad the debt I’m in cannot be resolved through bankruptcy.

barnestormer

Happy anniversary! I hardly ever comment but I’ve been reading since the first Left Behind analysis in 2003 (!) and I’m happy to know the story behind that picture :D

quietglow

Because Fred and commmenters might be interested, a bit of social jubilee: Derek Black has quit Stormfront.

Derek Black being the son of Don Black, Don Black being the former KKK leader for Alabama, and Stormfront being… Stormfront. Derek had this to say:

“I acknowledge that things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all,” he writes. “There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy… It is an advocacy that I cannot support, having grown past my bubble.

“I do not believe advocacy against ‘oppression of whites’ exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others,” he continues. “I am sorry for the damage done by my actions and my past endorsement of white nationalism.”

And another piece of the hateful past loses its grip on the present day, and slides just a little bit backward.

Lori

Good for him. It’s hard to break away when you were raised in hate. It speaks well of him that he was able to step far enough outside his father’s world to see it for what it is. I wish Derek the best moving forward. I hope he has a good support system.

themunck

And once again, the arc bends little bit more towards justice. Good for Derek and for us all.

The_L1985

*applauds*

Thank you, Derek. You’re growing into a better person. :)

LoneWolf343

Wasn’t Derek the name of the Neo-Nazi from American History X? Seems appropriate.

Mrs Grimble

That’s terrific. Before I read the piece, i was worried that he had simply changed one set of prejudices for another, as so many do.

For example, here in the UK, there was a fairly prominent WP skinhead who abruptly converted to Islam. You’d think that would be good, but in fact he had simply been recruited by a hard-line fundamentalist group that preached anti-Semitism, theocracy, the universal imposition of sharia law and so on. Which meant he could carry on being an anti-Semitic, misogynistic, hateful bullying bigot whilst presenting himself as a reformed ex-Nazi. And get to scream islamophobia whenever his views were criticised.

But it looks like Black has really and truly started thinking for himself. I wish him a bright future and happiness.

VMink

Happy Anniversary! =)

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

Signed on as well! *throws confetti*

ReverendRef

And most definitely, “Happy Anniversary!”

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

WASHINGTON – In a heated confrontation over domestic spying, members of Congress said Wednesday that they never intended to allow the National Security Agency to sweep up millions of Americans’ phone records.

Oh, please. These happy assholes (R and D alike) have been more than willing to pass laws that gleefully stomp all over the Fourth Amendment going back to the 1990s* because it has been politically easy to hang a bunch of people out to dry in the name of the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism.

They’re only sorry they finally got caught in a big enough shitstorm to have to actually restrain themselves and their designated law-carry-outers (Police, FBI, NSA, etc) from sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted.

— * In fact one of the early crowning pieces of distasteful gleefulness over gutting the Fourth Amendment was the consideration by Congress of the weakening of the Exclusionary Rule about setting aside evidence obtained illegally in a search or seizure.

http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

They never intended — but they were more than happy to kill a bill which would have curtailed the NSA’s right to do so.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

Of course. The House has a Republican majority and the dickheads are more than happy to pass laws against omgmuslimsocialist traitors who might be terists too. *rolls eyes*

Dash1

True, most Republicans were against curtailing the NSA, but many Dems were as well, and in fact the Democratic House leadership (Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer) were among those who shot down the bill (to curtail the NSA). But then, politicians being what they are, I’m surprised the bill came as close to passing as it did.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

Yeah, that’s why I said “R and D both”. Neither party can pass up the chance to make easy hay by beating up on pot smokers or “terrorists” (while conveniently ignoring the various right-wing militia gangs in the USA).

P J Evans

They never intended, but ‘terrorism! national security!’ and a lot of legal memos and decisions that weren’t made public at the time, and extremely limited access by members of Congress. And the guys who wrote those memos and made those decisions are still free and working.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

Fine bunch of hypocrites, too, since they killed the legislation after puffing themselves up like indignant bullfrogs who might actually respect (for once) the ideals they claim to uphold.

de_la_Nae

I haven’t done my research, but the immediate question that comes to mind about the Weiner case is this: were the pictures unsolicited, outside of the context of a relationship, and without his spouse’s approval?

I know a whole lot of (informed and consentually) non-monogamous people, so..y’know.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

What really bothers me is that Weiner just can’t seem to control himself with the dick pics.

I was ready to maybe countenance that it was a case of moral prudery in the USA sinking Weiner way back in 2010, but now? It’s just him not knowing shit-all about acceptable behavior.

http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Yes. The story quotes someone as saying this election should be about the “issues” and not about Weiner’s “sexual peccadillos,” as though the two things were always and everywhere totally separate. In Weiner’s case, though, one of the issues at play is “Which candidate (if any) has an emotional maturity greater than Beavis & Butthead? Oh, and also has a clue about treating all their staff, thus by implication, their constituency, with respect, and not just the portion of that population that presents as male? That would be nice too.”

aunursa

When the first texts were revealed two years ago, Mr. Weiner lied about it, saying he had been the victim of hackers. Then he owned up, tearfully abandoned his office [aun: actually he was forced out by his colleagues] and retreated into private life. Then he was back, telling the world that therapy and his wife’s forgiveness had turned him around and that he was ready to begin a new chapter. That turned out to be the mayor’s race, which he entered in May. What he did not say then, and what voters did not realize until Tuesday, was that his resignation had not been the end of his sexual misconduct.

The timing here matters, as it would for any politician who violates the public’s trust and then asks to have it back. Things are different now, he insists. “This behavior is behind me,” he said again on Tuesday. He suggested that people should have known that his sexting was an unresolved problem well into 2012.

That’s ridiculous and speaks to a familiar but repellent pattern of misleading and evasion. It’s up to Mr. Weiner if he wants to keep running, to count on voters to forgive and forget and hand him the keys to City Hall. But he has already disqualified himself.

New York Times editorial, July 23, 2013

de_la_Nae

Ah. That doesn’t bode well for the man, then. Either it is, and he’s a coward and a liar, or it isn’t, and he’s a liar and something else. Greeeeat.

Dash1

This. And I hope the voters of NY are smart enough not to give him those keys. On the other hand, they are a forgiving folk.

John Oliver did a brilliant job of taking down Anthony Wiener. He described him as a man whose private life would not be an issue if he did not suffer from an unfortunate addiction: he can’t seem to control his urge to run for public office.

Lori

IMO the first sexting scandal should have permanently ended his political career because it wasn’t consensual. As we discussed recently, sending a woman unsolicited dick pics is an act of aggression. No one who engages in non-consensual sexual conduct, and clearly doesn’t get why it’s a problem, should hold the kind of elected office that requires him to represent a broad constituency that includes women. And I say that as a person who admires many of Weiner’s political positions and had hoped for good things from him.

The more recent scandal involves consensual conduct and I’d be generally inclined to say that’s between him & his wife it it wasn’t obvious that he’s got a real problem. Either he’s incredibly arrogant, even by politician standards, or this is compulsive behavior for him. Either way I wouldn’t vote for him. NYC has suffered enough as the result of the poor decision making of a major with a sordid sex life*.

As a contrast, I think the situation with Elliot Spitzer is quite different. It was incredibly hypocritical of him to purchase sex from a prostitute while his job was enforcing the law and he was busting other people for prostitution. Clearly he’s more than a bit of an ass. I think it’s likely that he was motivated by some bad attitudes about sex (of the Madonna/whore variety) and an excessive level of personal danger-seeking. I wouldn’t want to be married to him. That said, I don’t think it disqualifies him from being city comptroller. That’s a job where he represents the people only financially and the person who holds it is in a good position to be a real pain in Wall Street’s ass. I think Spitzer is the perfect person for that job and I’d vote for him without feeling bad about it.

*Giuliani insisted on having the city’s emergency response center located in a known terrorist target because he wanted it within walking distance of his office so that he could use it as a trysting spot for meeting the woman with whom he was carrying on an extramarital affair. It’s not possible to know how many lives that decision cost on 9/11, but it was absolutely >0.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

I think it’s precisely because Spitzer was such a pain in Wall Street’s ass that people were practically panting for anything to bring him down on. Dude should’ve known his life would be under a microscope.

Lori

Yup. His personal judgment was not good on any level. I’d still be fine with him being comptroller of NYC.

Daniel

“Giuliani insisted on having the city’s emergency response center located in a known terrorist target because he wanted it within walking distance of his office so that he could use it as a trysting spot for meeting the woman with whom he was carrying on an extramarital affair. It’s not possible to know how many lives that decision cost on 9/11, but it was absolutely” Can you please give me some more information about this? I’ve not heard about this before- was the location in or near the WTC because of Giuliani’s input? I have no idea how much control a mayor in the US has over that sort of decision.

Lori

Under Giuliani the emergency operations center was located in 7 World Trade, which was a bad idea from the get.

He made that decision for personal convenience, including using it for the aforementioned affair.

The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that “very senior officials,” specifically including Giuliani, “were involved,” which he said was a major difference between this and other projects.Giuliani’s office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.

The Office of Emergency Management wasn’t much use on 9/11 even while it was functioning (because contrary to Giuliani’s revisionist tales, it wasn’t created to respond to terrorism.) When the first tower came down the center ceased to function altogether and was of no further use coordinating anything, including pulling personnel out of the 2nd tower before it came down.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

Sad thing is, even if that had been known prior to 9/11 the hagiographic “rally around the leader” effect might still have insulated Guiliani from the fallout over whose dimbulb idea it was to spend taxpayer money on their own personal bulletproof hotel room.

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

It really bugs me how consent and honesty have pretty much been non-issues in this scandal. It wasn’t until today that I even knew whether or not his latest sexting had been with a consenting partner because it never even occurred to the media that this might matter: either “sexting your wang to someone” is a permitted behavior, or it is a forbidden behavior, and whether or not the recipient wants it done doesn’t enter into it.

Likewise, the talk about his wife has centered around the question “Is it even reasonable to expect monogomy any more?” as if our choices are “Sexting is cheating and cheating is forbidden therefore she has done wrong by staying with him” or “Sexting isn’t cheating therefore she is right to stay with him and would be wrong to leave him” or “Sexting is cheating but cheating should not be forbidden therefore she is right to stay with him” — no sense of “How she feels about it is relevent to whether or not it is right for him to sext other women.”

Personally, the most i’d say about Weiner is that he’s demonstrated that his process for making career-affecting decisions is sufficiently flawed that he is a poor candidate for a position that requires one to make important decisions under duress.

And all that said, the thing I most happens as the fallout of this is that “There’s a picture of your private parts on the internet” proves an infeasible basis on which to exclude a person from public society, because we’re going to hit a tipping point before too long where it won’t be practical to bar anyone with a naked selfie from public office or respectable jobs, and I want that to happen before too many more people get discarded.

Lori

I agree with all of this. The lack of discussion about consent is a symptom of rape culture and perpetuates it . The coverage of this has been infuriating and just upsetting. And yes, at some point we’re going to have to let go of the idea that it’s the end of the world for a person to have a picture of their junk floating around the internet somewhere or we’re not going to have enough people to run for office. Now would probably be a fine time for that to kick in.

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

This sort of attitude is why I really thought the Republican fooforaw over Clinton getting with a woman not his wife was a tempest in a teapot. If every President who ever had an affair got impeached the careers of quite a few of them would’ve been damn short.

It’s long past time Americans got over their titillation about politicians’ sex lives as long as all parties were consenting.

Lori

The issue that I had with the Clinton scandals was that it wasn’t clear that all parties were consenting in a meaningful way. The fog of idiocy around the rape allegations was so thick that I never did make up my mind what I thought about them, and I’m also of two minds about him sexing it up with Monica Lewinski. On one had she was an adult and she clearly wanted it. On the other hand he was POTUS and she was a White House intern and that’s just skeevy and possibly not a situation that allows for meaningful consent.

Everything about the Republican approach to the issue was all kinds of wrong and f’ed up. I did not support it and I’ve never even considered changing my view about that. I voted for Clinton the 2nd time and I don’t feel bad about it. Still, the whole thing left a bad taste that’s never gone away.

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

One of the elements of rape culture that i’ve been trying to think all the way through seems to be this: that the morality of sexual activity attaches to their conformance to a list of allowed vs forbidden activities, without an acknowledgement of the role of consent. It encourages looking at sexual morality like a checkist. And this leads in one direction to rapists walking because, regardless of their victim’s consent, the physical act itself was “shaped” in accordance with the checklist. In the opposite direction, it leads to attempts to ban activities between consenting adults — we’ve actually had people here come in and claim that a person can’t consent to sex with their own gender, that it’s meaningless to do so, because they think of consent not as “making the choice to engage in activity” but as “stamping their sexual passport having made sure the applicant’s form is filled out correctly,” so it is considered illegitimate for a person refuse consent when the act meets the specified criteria for approval, but it’s equally illegitimate to grant consent for an act on the “forbidden” list.

Kubricks_Rube

I’m with Ta-Nehisi Coates on this: “I believe that how you treat people matters. It is folly to embarrass your pregnant wife before an entire nation. To do the same thing again is cruelty.[…] I think public office is an honored, and honorable, position. I do not think it is wrong to ask that our officers be compassionate. I do not believe it is wrong to ask that our officers be wise. I do not believe that it is the fate of all men to send dick pics hurtling through cyberspace. And I do not believe that Anthony Weiner is the best we can expect from maledom, to say nothing of New York liberals.”

http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

“I do not believe that it is the fate of all men to send dick pics hurtling through cyberspace.”

WIN.

Ta-Nehisi Coates’s house must be quite crowded with all those internets he’s won over the years. Do you think he rents them out for tasteful display in museums and restaurants so as to make a little space on his shelves for books and such?

Baby_Raptor

See, that’s what I’ve been wondering the entire time. What if his wife has given him permission to be flirting/etc with these other women?

And really, is it any of our business? His marriage, I mean, not the lying to cover it up, though that only became necessary *because* people were convinced his marriage was their business…

Lori

Did you see any pictures from his press conference? She did not look like a woman who had given her husband permission to sext with other women. Also, Weiner hasn’t said anything to indicate that his wife knew about it in advance. If that was the case I assume he’d say so since being a cheater is about to sink his political career in a way that being an online creeper unjustly did not.

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

I’m sure she doesn’t mind the infidelity and is only upset because she’s actually a secret muslim spy and the implosion of his career will block her access to important secrets about New York’s anti-terrorism defenses she plans to secretly leak to our enemies, which is why she stayed with him after the original scandal*.

*(Actual claim I heard from the right-wing nuts-o-sphere the last time Anthony’s Weiner made the news.)

(Seriously, it’s not that difficult: Don’t tweet your weiner. Just like that song by Rocky Mountain Oyster Cult)

Lori

(Actual claim I heard from the right-wing nuts-o-sphere the last time Anthony’s Weiner made the news.

There is no bottom with these people. You can’t think, “They can’t sink any lower than this” because there’s always another level to the underground parking garage that is their imagination.

Baby_Raptor

On the other hand, admitting to having an open relationship would probably sink him just as bad, if not faster.

Lori

IDK. It is NYC not Podunk, and we’re talking a little sanctioned sexting, not an orgy or something. I think if she was OK with what he had done he’d be spinning this a lot differently and she wouldn’t look like she wanted the floor to open up and swallow her.

storiteller

The problem with determining consent in some of these cases is the power differential. If there truly is consent, that’s one thing. But it can be hard to tell the difference between that and if the person receiving them only says there is consent because they’re afraid of the consequences. That’s why even if the mayor of San Diego was making “welcome” sexual comments it would still be incredibly inappropriate because he’s the boss.

Lori

None of the women involved in the Anthony Weiner scandal worked for him. In fact, he apparently never met some of them. The ones who with whom the sexual contact (naked pictures of his penis) wasn’t consensual said that. The press more or less ignored it, but the victims didn’t seem to have any problem standing up for themselves. The mutual exchange of messages in the more resent cases would seem to indicate that the sexting was consensual.

There’s just no excuse for Filner’s behavior or for the fact that he’s still in office.

storiteller

I totally agree. I was talking about politicians in general, but I’m glad the women affected in the Weiner scandal were willing to stand up for themselves. You can have a power differential even without being employed by someone.

MarkTemporis

I’m not sure there’s much of a power differential (or rather, more than normally between men and women) between these women and “Carlos Danger, International Man of Mystery”.

banancat

Yes, the pictures were unsolicited. The approval or disapproval of his wife is a red herring because he violated the receiver’s consent.

Protip: Whenever you start to type “I haven’t done any research, but”, stop typing and do some research. Google is right there in the next tab over.

de_la_Nae

Dude(ette/ent/whatever). Google’s right there, but I usually find it takes hours to sift through all the under/poorly-detailed reporting and outright repeats of other news releases to flesh out a whole picture of a situation. I had ten minutes before work shift, though I’ll allow there’s no way you could have known that.

It’s why I tried to emphasis that it was simply the first stuff that came to mind when hearing about it. Maybe I’m misreading you, but I feel like you’re implying I’m trying to overshadow the recipient by focusing on Weiner’s wife, but I promise I’m not; it’s probably a muddled way to phrase it, but ‘outside of the context of a relationship’ was meant to convey the question of whether the recipient consented or not, was a significant other of some sort, etc.

Protip: Hi! If I’m getting condescending or defensive, I appreciate it when people let me know. Do you want me to let you know when you’re being such? I’m sure you aren’t trying to be, I’m just probably reading too much into it because I’ve had a rough day, but…yeah I can’t *not* see it right this moment.

http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

Happy fifth, Fred.

http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Happy anniversary, Fred & Slacktivixen. Here’s to many more happy, loving, fulfilling years to come.

Steve

It is tomorrow here in Australia, so happy anniversary to you the Vixen. I wish you both the best and many more years together.

stardreamer42

Holy crap, my now-ex graduated from Hillsboro High School. He must be mortified; they didn’t do this kind of shit back in the 80s.